Methodology for Calculation and

Declaration of Energy Consumptions and

GHG Emissions in Ports and Terminals

Case of Container Terminals

Indah Lengkong & Jens Froese | ITEE 2013

Lüneburg | 12.07.2013

Agenda

2

1. Research background

2. Existing measurement and reporting standards

3. Criteria for developing carbon footprint calculation method

4. Proposed methodology for container terminal carbon footprint calculation

5. Carbon footprint allocation on cargo unit level

6. Conclusion and next steps

Research Background

3

Key deficiencies in port and terminal research:

• Identification and implementation of strategic measurements for improving

energy efficiency are still not covering all process domains

• Lack of a standardised method to measure and allocate energy consumption

and GHG emissions

• Lack of energy efficiency key performance indicators to allow for

benchmarking and control

Research Background (cont.)

4

Who needs carbon footprint values from a container terminal?

Container terminal carbon footprint measurement & reporting:

Product-related > Clients and shipping line

Operation-related > Ports and society

Company -related + activity-based > Terminals

Shipping

Line

Port

Container

Terminal

4PL

Clients

Society

2e CO

?

Research Background (cont.)

5

Research objective

To develop an applicable carbon footprint measurement framework for sea

terminals, serving three principals:

• a transparent and standardized CO2-equivalent calculation method;

• a consistent reporting scheme; and

• an effective management system.

Existing Measurement and Reporting Standards

6

1. GHG Protocol (adopted by ISO 14064-1): what and where to be measured

• define boundaries (emissions scope 1 – 3)

• select measurement approach

• collect activity data and emissions factors

• calculate GHG emissions (CO2e)

• declaration and reporting

2. CEN 16258: how to measure and allocate

• identify different transport leg

• calculate energy consumption and emissions of each transport leg

• calculation at the vehicle operations system (VOS) level

• allocate to different shipment

• define allocation parameter (e.g. tonne, volume, pallete, TEU ; by distance km)

• sum-up results of all legs of the transport service

Existing Measurement and Reporting Standards (cont.)

7

GHG Protocol CEN 16258

Target users All type of companies Transport services

Boundaries • Direct emissions (scope 1)

• Indirect emissions (scope 2 & 3) ,

including office building, maintenance

workshop, lighting, cold store, handling

equipment, business trips, staff

commuting and third party services

• Direct emissions from transport

mode/vehicles

• Indirect emissions, including production

and transportation of fuels for transport

mode/vehicles

GHG emissions

sources

Scope 1, 2, 3 • Well-to-tank/WTT (energy processes)

• Tank-to-wheel (vehicle processes)

Measurement

methodology

Direct measurement, published emission

factors, default fuel use data

• Specific measured values,

• Transport operator vehicle-type or route-

type specific values,

• Transport operator fleet values,

• Default values

Activity data • Scope 1: fuel consumption

• Scope 2: purchased energy and supplier

specific, local grid or other published

emissions factor

• Scope 3: reported energy use or

published third party emissions

• Fuel consumption

• Actual distance

• Weight of shipment

• Energy and emissions conversion factor

Source: GHG Protocol, ISO 14064-1 and CEN 16258

Existing Measurement and Reporting Standards (cont.)

8

3. ISO 50001: energy management framework

• measure energy consumption

• identify areas of improvement

• establish an energy baseline

• determine appropriate energy performance indicators and targets

• develop and implement an energy action plan

Criteria for carbon footprint calculation method

9

Terms of reference to capture a terminal‘s carbon footprint:

• Comprehensive i.e. covering all business activities required to provide the

transshipment service (also those not directly related to cargo handling

operations)

• Transparent, consistent and standardized method to allow for benchmarking

• One comprehensive database satisfying all reporting requirements

• Manageable also for SMEs

• Generalized and based on average rather than individual values (same type

of cargo unit must result in an identical carbon footprint)

• Carbon footprint of a cargo unit must be known before the transport contract

to serve as a contract criterium

Carbon footprint calculation methodology

10

1. Calculation of total emissions of scopes 1 and 2

According to energy consumption for the last full year (from energy

bills paid) report directly based on GHG protocol requirement for

e.g. terminal annual report, seaport and surrounding community

2. Split into process clusters

According to terminal process domains (including business activities not

directly related to cargo operations) this facilitates efficient energy

management for terminal

3. Allocated to shipments

According to classified reference-units this provides the carbon

footprint for the clients„ shipment (for carbon footprinting on product

level) Note: Carbon Footprint on product level, i.e. individual shipment, not contained commodities

Carbon footprint calculation methodology Example of Container Terminal

11

Step 1: Calculation of total energy consumption and emissions of

scopes 1 and 2

Below figures shows an example of energy consumption and emissions of a reference container

terminal* handling 1,6 million TEU, estimated to consume about 12 million kWh electric energy and 3,1

million liter of diesel per year.

Example of emissions consumers scope 2:

Emissions from purchased electricity

Example of emissions consumers scope 1:

Emissions from diesel engine of

owned-handling equipment

* Reference container terminal was developed within the GREEN EFFORTS project

Source: Froese &Toeter (2013)

Carbon footprint calculation methodology (cont.) Example of Container Terminal

12

Step 2: Split into process clusters - for terminal„s efficient energy management

Main energy consumers:

e.g. quay crane

- Container handling equipment

- Reefer containers

Source: Froese, J, et.al,. (2012)

Carbon footprint calculation methodology (cont.) Example of Container Terminal

13

Step 3: Allocation of carbon footprint– for clients

more disaggregated level, e.g. cargo unit activity-based costing (ABC) approach

(Lin, et.al, 2001):

“…calculating the costs of individual activities and assigning those costs to cost objects

such as products an services on the basis of the activities undertaken to produce each

product or services” (Horngren et.al., 2000, quoted in Lin, et.al., 2011).

Carbon footprint calculation methodology (cont.) Example of Container Terminal

14

a) Classify reference-units:

For example:

• empty containers

• 20„ containers laden

• 40„/45„ containers laden

• 20„ reefer containers

• deep frozen

• chilled

• 40„ reefer containers

• deep frozen

• chilled

• Out of gauge cargo (project cargo “high & heavy”)

Identify cause and effect

relationships between the activity

and the consumption and

emissions.

carbon – driver

A factor that causes CF

e.g. cargo units

Carbon footprint calculation methodology (cont.) Example of Container Terminal

15

b) Identify handling operation and equipment configuration

For example:

• Ship to ship

• Ship to stack

• Stack to ship

• Stack to truck

• Stack to railway

• Stack to depot

(empty containers)

Source: Froese, J, et.al,. (2012)

Carbon footprint calculation methodology (cont.) Example of Container Terminal

16

c) „Weighting“ reference-units and operations (attributed factors) to

generate reference types of cargo units

Reference Units Weighted factors

Extra consumption*

empty containers Extra handling needed

20„ containers laden -

40„/45„ containers laden Additional weight

20„ reefer containers - deep frozen Electricity; plug on, duration

of stay

20„ reefer containers - chilled Electricity; plug on,

fluctuating according to

required temperature

duration of stay

40„ reefer containers - deep frozen Electricity; plug on ;

duration of stay

40„ reefer containers - chilled Electricity; plug on –

fluctuating according to

required temperature ;

duration of stay

out of gauge Extra handling needed,

weight

* Addtional to consumption of main handling equipment used

Carbon footprint calculation methodology (cont.) Example of Container Terminal

17

d) Case counting (full year)

Step 1:

Identification of different reference units and operations

Step 2:

Calculation of energy consumption and CO2e emissions of each process (a reference unit and its operation

process)

• number of movements of each equipment of this process

• equipment operating hours

• multiply equipment consumption with each weighted factor

• average energy consumption and CO2e emissions of each process

e) Allocating total carbon footprint of one year to cases resulting in an average carbon footprint

per reference type of cargo units

Carbon footprint calculation methodology (cont.) Example of Container Terminal

18

Notes:

• Actual applied carbon footprint is then based on a predetermined formula according to the

results from the previous year (general cost accounting principle).

• In case of significant changes in consumption or provision of energy or of operations, the

formula must become adjusted accordingly.

Conclusion

19

Standard measurements for carbon footprint at a container terminal shall be done according

to GHG Protocol ( ISO 14064-1) for scope 1 and 2, which later might become extended to

scope 3 (estimations and lump sum considerations) – which reporting is currently is still

optional.

Following approaches to be recommended:

• GHG Protocol to identify where and what to be measured (scope 1 to 3)

• CEN 16258 as a methodology how to measure the energy consumption and the

GHG emissions and proportionally allocate emissions to each transported unit.

• ISO 50001 as a management framework

Application of the CEN 16258 standard is currently restricted only to the transport service,

which is not sufficient to provide a broader view of emissions on company level. Therefore,

the combination with GHG Protocol Corporate Standard is recommended.

Next steps

20

Validation of the methodology for carbon footprint calculation for sea-terminals

Further investigation to determine appropriate energy performance indicators and

targets for sea-terminals for benchmarking

Integration of scope 3 emissions (often share the biggest source of emissions)

Integration of energy efficiency measurement and action plan

Acknowledgement

21

DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung (2012) EN 16258:2012 Methodology for calculation and declaration on energy

consumptions and GHG emissions in transport services (good and passengers transport)

Froese, J/Green EFFORTS (2012) Project Topology, Methodology and Tools, Deliverable 3.1.

Froese, J and Toeter, S (2013) Reduction of Carbon Footprint of Ports and Terminals – Fiction and Reality, GreenPort

South Asia Conference 2013, Mumbai

ISO, 2006, EN ISO 14064-1, Greenhouse gases -- Part 1: Specification with guidance at the organization level for

quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and removals

ISO, 2011, EN ISO 50001, Energy management systems – Requirement with guidance for use

Lin, B., Collins, J. and Su, r.K., 2011, Supply chain costing: an activity-based perspective, International Journal of

Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 31 No. 10, p. 702-13

References

This research is conducted in line with the GREEN EFFORTS, "Green and

Effective Operations at Terminals and in Ports", a collaborative research

project co-funded by the European Commissions under the Seventh

Framework Programme. www.green-efforts.eu

Indah Lengkong & Jens Froese

E-Mail: i.lengkong@jacobs-university.de

Maritime Logistics Workgroup

Jacobs University Bremen

12.07.2013